Honest concerns and meaningful discourse are never a problem. The problems start when two things happen:
1) when exchanging stand points begins to substitute meaningful discourse. (in other words, all talking and no listening).
and
2) when one or both parties are not willing to reconsider any aspect of their point of view regardless of evidence, sometimes very convincing evidence, that what they're saying is not accurate.
(and maybe #3): When the message becomes, "I am right and you are wrong and that's all there is to say."
In other words, absolutely no progress can ever be made about some issues because people have simply decided that they are right and everyone else is wrong, no matter what is said.
In that case, saying anything at all is completely pointless, isn't it?
I don't think that the discussion is off-topic. Post #1 of this thread introduced the term POV Warrior. The thread was placed in the Site Support / Feedback sub-group and titled Split from: Are you afraid to post. At no point did I start a PADI conversation, nor have I reflected anything negative about PADI on this thread.
To respond to your comments, talking and not listening in a conversation is not restricted to one side of the conversation. In-fact effective communication ceases when one (or both) sides to the discussion do this.
One party can feel their argument is ironclad and the evidence is overwhelming, while the other side feels that they have no evidence at all. If you are walking in a park in-which no motor vehicles are allowed and get hit by a car, I'm afraid you wouldn't listen to the police officer saying: "It couldn't have been a car, they're not allowed in the Park." You have direct experience and know better. "Evidence" including pictures of signs saying "No vehicles allowed" isn't evidence at all.
In this analogy, no one could blame the policeman for feeling that the pedestrian is mistaken, but you can't blame the pedestrian; afterall he was the only one that was there at the time. It would take more than speculation to change his mind. Times change, but failing indesputable evidence, it's logical for the pedestrian to think the potential is still there for him to be hit by a car, should he walk on that path again.
Having had some experience with various people on this site, it's easy to presume what they will say before they say it. I attempt to not jump the gun or bring up old conversations on new threads unless I'm attacked. It's too bad that some others don't feel that way. The height of rudeness is to talk about someone behind their back. We've had this conversation before, so I need say no more.
For better or for worse, Pete coined a term for people who do this. But him giving it a name doesn't change what's happening. It just gives it a name. That's all.
I gave making-up names for people who disagreed with me in grade 3.
Last edited: